[b101uk]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

right then... well you get the picture of how torque rolls the plane in the opposite direction to the prop rotation

fixed mount - not much roll

no mount - a lot of roll

revv your (car) engine in neutral and watch what happens

I have long understood torque since I was a child some 33 years ago growing up around large machinery, lorries and aircraft some of which were for air racing and that was some time before my posts in this thread.

Now I have razed the point about gearbox, I have razed the point about lower gearing and you keep banging on about the “engine“ in spite of the hints, the prop in spitfires turns clockwise, there is a reduction gearbox on the front of the engine, the engine crank and flywheel turn anticlockwise, because the reduction box reduces the speed of the prop relative to the crank torque multiplication takes place therefore the forces that want to push the “engine block” clockwise under load CAN NEVER MATCH the MUCH BIGGER forces on the gearbox pushing anticlockwise as its trying to turn the prop under load clockwise, hence why e.g. the spitfire/hurricane when at low speed want to dip the left wing if rpm is sharply ramped up - its NOT “engine“ it’s the gearbox vs. prop.

Now go back and look at the video I posted, that is a clockwise turning engine in a chassis being twisted clockwise because the gearbox output shaft is turning anticlockwise which is totally opposite to the “rocking” the engine would do if you merely sharply revved it up in neutral agenised the mere weigh of the flywheels resistance to being accelerated or if under full load its self feeding in to the gear box its rigidly mounted to.

so as i said:

forget the engine we are only interested in ware the force from pushing a prop one way ultimately ends up!